Slashdot Mirror

Where I come from the education system teaches children that is is very bad form to play the man instead of the ball, and it teaches them that at an early age. Let's get back to your flawed education system or you explaining your "socialist corporatism" idea shall we instead of childish personal attacks. I'll be intrigued if you can get the two things to relate together while preserving the meanings that all the rest of us know. We cannot read your mind so we are restricted to what is in the dictionary to communicate. Give it a try.

Heh the rest us? I'm pretty sure this thread is old by now. I fail to see why I need to explain to you these things when you are capable of researching them yourself, but here I'll help you with some common interweb sites:

egalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

totalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

fascism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

corporatism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporatisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I typically begin researching topics by first looking in the dictionary, then the encyclopedia, then specific literature (books) on the subject at the library. Good luck!

Where I come from the education system teaches children that is is very bad form to play the man instead of the ball, and it teaches them that at an early age. Let's get back to your flawed education system or you explaining your "socialist corporatism" idea shall we instead of childish personal attacks. I'll be intrigued if you can get the two things to relate together while preserving the meanings that all the rest of us know. We cannot read your mind so we are restricted to what is in the dictionary to communicate. Give it a try.

Heh the rest us? I'm pretty sure this thread is old by now. I fail to see why I need to explain to you these things when you are capable of researching them yourself, but here I'll help you with some common interweb sites:

egalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

totalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

fascism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

corporatism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporatisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I typically begin researching topics by first looking in the dictionary, then the encyclopedia, then specific literature (books) on the subject at the library. Good luck!

-verb (used with object)

3. to stamp or otherwise place a trademark designation upon.

4. to register the trademark of

Did you mean moot?

Sorry, pet peeve.

Sorry to nitpick, but signing a contract saying you can't resell something is not an example of transferring a right.

Agreed. See repudiate

I have the inalienable *right* to sell my old unwanted CDs, DVD, or disks.

You are using the word inalienable incorrectly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable
-adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

There are some rights you cannot be understood to have repudiated or transferred by contract, such as self-defence. Even if you sign a contract saying you won't defend yourself a court will still uphold your right to do so. Second hand selling is not like that. You have a right to do it, but it's not an inalienable right. If you were to sign a contract "I give up my right so sell this product second hand in return for a lower purchase price" for example, you could be held to that. If every right was inalienable, contracts would be impossible.

grafting is an anglo word. See: 4. British Slang. work; labor.

"Druggie" is not a word, so I am not certain how you are correcting its spelling.

Well, several dictionaries do not agree with you.

Here is the entry from dictionary.com -- note that according to the Random House entry, "druggy" is an acceptable alternate spelling, contrary to the GP. The Merriam-Webster entry also indicates "druggy" as a variant spelling.

Here is the entry from the Oxford English Dictionary, widely considered to be authoritative on all dialects of the English language.

So, the GP may have been wrong for taking you (or whoever) to task for the "druggy" spelling, but you are most certainly wrong that it is not a word. Next time, do a little research. A slang term that has entered common use is still a word, regardless of its origins.

Also, the GP was very much right for calling out the hate speech for what it was.

The problem with menu style systems is that it is not intuitive. There is resistance to the change because of 'menus are the way we are used to doing things' not necessarily the way things should be done. Putting features in front of the user rather than 3 to 4 deep in a menu system is far more intuitive.

Intrusive has negative meaning. "1. tending or apt to intrude; coming without invitation or welcome"

Good is not being intrusive. Menus set features in logical hierarchy structure. Ribbon is oversized and hard to use, because it hides features from end user. Copying Microsoft shit breaks usability. For example, vmware server 1.x has remote console, 2.x version put console on web server like Microsoft Virtual Server does. 2.x shit is intrusive (wants to load own controls or plugins in browser), unstable (runs as some applet in browser and is not independent program) and unusable.

Another good example is MSN Messenger. I can never find the menu button, and when I do the menu looks just retarted.

Yes, I agree. This is very "retarted".

How clueless are you exactly?

Definition of Rape. Educate yourself.

You don't cite any examples of the "massive bribery," of course.

You obviously have paid no attention to how government works, or of the fact that it got so bad during the various copyright extension maneuvers that the dishonorable Howard Berman was alternately referred to by "D-Disney" or "The Representative From Hollywood" rather than by his own district.

You may want to look up the definition of "literally" before abusing it.
See above. You may want to go back to school and finish something further than the third grade.

Finally, you make the crazy claim that the characters have been "treated like shit for years," despite hugely successful film franchises like Spider-man, Ironman, the Hulk, and more as well as countless videogames and comic books spanning decades.

The ability for various places/entities to spin out garbage after garbage after garbage after shovelware does not indicate "success." In fact, Marvel recently admitted they had made incredibly choices in a press conference where Ira Rubenstein spoke the words "Actually, wait ... we are not doing crappy movie-based games anymore. You can quote me on that."

No sane system would throw beloved properties into the public domain and disallow the creators' estate to profit from the public's continued commercial interest in those properties.

Wrong. No sane system would make it so that those whose entire success is built on the pilfering, plundering, yes raping, pillaging, (insert other word of choice here) of the public domain, and then spending decades sending lawyers against anyone else who chooses to create something else based on the same public domain work on the basis of "copyright" or "trademark", can prevail.

The purpose of copyright is to, and I quote the constitution (which you no doubt have never read), "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The "limits" today are so long as to be meaningless. They do not allow for the required return of writings and discoveries and art into the public domain; instead, they serve as a brake and impediment to progress. It says nothing about passing these on to "heirs", nor handing them as perpetual goods-of-sale to corporations.

Once you're dead, your writings should be in the public domain. Your kids want to get paid for writing something? Let them go learn to write and come up with something new on their own that is worth buying.

As I and other have posted above, though obscure, what he is saying makes sense if you look up the alternate definitions for each of these words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally def 4:

4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape def 5:

5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Disney has virtually carried off by force the public domain works, and never given anything back.

Does this sentence make more sense in the context of the argument?

As I and other have posted above, though obscure, what he is saying makes sense if you look up the alternate definitions for each of these words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally def 4:

4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape def 5:

5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Disney has virtually carried off by force the public domain works, and never given anything back.

Does this sentence make more sense in the context of the argument?

I believe he is a "Get off my lawn" aged person, because according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape definition #4:

5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Which would apply to this particular case. So read up a little on words before you go off slamming people for using them in odd ways. Unless you really believe that when an army rapes a countryside they are truely raping every woman in site rather then taking food and supplies.

I got into that argument of semantics about 17 years ago in high school, she said rape meant the sex act, I said it could mean forcibly carried away.

She kept arguing so I raped her all the way to the dictionary.

A conspiracy theory post

I don't think that word means what you think it does. Now crawl back to Bill, little M$ shill. There's no one on the Code Pox board that's not already an M$ employee or partner. How is that not a stacked board?

It sounds like you would say "ethics" where I would say "ethical or moral code", and you would say "morals" where I would say "ethical or moral belief". However, I would say that there is still a third element in that a codification and a belief are separate from objective truth. We should be cautious of a false dichotomy here as something may not violate either my beliefs or codes, but still be morally wrong. This is the same as in physics where a codification of physical law, a belief about physical law, and the actual physical law are different things. The former two are indirectly or directly subjective (i.e. you can make objective statements about the codification, but the codification is based on a belief and thus contains a subjective element (Plato's cave anyone?)) while the latter is purely objective.

A quick google shows little consistency in the meanings of these terms even among those who draw a distinction. Some sources say ethics is the study of morality. Others say ethics is a system of morality. Still others even reverse the distinction (i.e. Ethics = personal, Morals = public custom).

Given the lack of consensus over ethics versus morals I think it is safer to just use the words "code" and "belief" rather than try to make a distinction that is likely to draw you into a debate over how we want to arbitrarily define words. (It also avoids the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier and prevents the use of "ethics" and "morals" as loaded words for subjectivity.)

That's because "non-organic" food is *drumroll* completely organic. Oh my god. Seriously, it kills me that these assholes get away with calling their food "organic" (implying other food is not organic) and there are actually regulations on what you can call "organic" (even though it is all, in fact, organic).

Newsflash: The same word can have more than one meaning and it can adopt new meanings over time. The intended meaning is usually clear from the context. Meaning arises from consensus among a broad population of speakers. Complaints about how others use language almost always fail to influence behavior.

What you are really saying is: "I am smart because I know the particular definition of a word used by chemists. I am also insecure. I will berate those I perceive to be less intelligent than me and hope that others adore me for being brilliant."

To be fair, I'm doing exactly the same thing...

The BCA's case rests on the fact that one possible interpretation of Simon Singh's use of the word 'bogus' is that he was implying that they say things that they know not to be true. Given that the first definition of 'bullshit' at dictionary.com is 'nonsense, lies, or exaggeration', I think he would be in exactly as much trouble as he is in now.

Oh, Dusty. In-feasbile is when you're MORE than feasible. This TCP/IP fix, it's not just feasible, it's IN-feasible.

Um, there's not much else to say about this other than you're completely wrong. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infeasible says:

-adjective
not feasible; impracticable.

All words are invented at some point. This particular one was invented in 1525 according to dictionary.com. I have to say this little thread confused the hell out of me for a while because I use "infeasible" pretty commonly, I guess some people just aren't familiar with it. Thought I was going mad...

Actually robot is rooted in Latin

Unless you mean indirectly, the dictionary disagrees:

Origin: < Czech, coined by Karel ÄOEapek in the play R.U.R. (1920) from the base robot-, as in robota compulsory labor, robotnÃk peasant owing such labor

Best code-words for masturbation to porn ever.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innuendo

The problem is the submitter and editor thought folks at slashdot would know what "inert" means. Obviously, you and a few others didn't..."Inert" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with radioactivity, even though radioactive materials may or may not be inert.

Chemically inert would have been perfectly clear. The word "inert" has a broader meaning in common usage than this narrow technical definition, being a synonym for inactive.

But you do get extra points for being snotty and pedantic.

Random House seems to think stentorious originated about 5 centuries ago, and actually slightly BEFORE the origin they give for stentorian. Whether those exact dates are right, you must be pretty old to consider anything in that region a neologism...

Random House seems to think stentorious originated about 5 centuries ago, and actually slightly BEFORE the origin they give for stentorian. Whether those exact dates are right, you must be pretty old to consider anything in that region a neologism...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/please

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force (scroll down to verb)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/please

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force (scroll down to verb)

I suspect you mean http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot and not http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mute.

But I could be wrong, I am on a regular basis.

I suspect you mean http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot and not http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mute.

But I could be wrong, I am on a regular basis.

Actually, stupider has been in common use for some time. Dictionaries have included it for a while note. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupider for example.

Fnacy Nmae.
Of course, they could exist on wikipedia if you'd like!

Fnacy Nmae.
Of course, they could exist on wikipedia if you'd like!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suss
*'D' means dictionary

"I also learned English trough the Internet."

If anyone was in need of a new .sig that has to be it ! ;-)

Rather, I'll defer to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

      1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
      2. To administer the office of a pontiff.

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=pontificate&ia=ahd4

They'll be hoping they can duck the bill for the lawsuit, but it'll no doubt leave a foul taste in their mouths...

Fowl.

Other things aside, I like your current .sig, having used something similar myself a few years ago.

Other things aside, I like your current .sig, having used something similar myself a few years ago.

I don't know what definition you're using, but most people define heiress that way.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Gyre

The fact that HDD manufacturers want to use the biggest numbers they can for marketing doesn't change the fact that they are also technically correct. Defining kilobyte as 1024 bytes is simply a misuse of the SI prefix and conflicts with every other use of kilo- in units. That definition was chosen because it was a round binary number that happened to be very close to 1000. But, as typical data sizes get bigger, the two systems diverge more and more so you can't ignore the difference between a real TB and a "binary TB" like you can for kilobyte.

So, this is not a case of marketing trumping computer science, but rather a case of marketing choosing to be technically correct because it gave them an advantage, a rare occurrence.

If you want to talk about the term "organic" you'll have to give an example of a food you've eaten that wasn't derived from a plant, animal or other living organism. The definition you're referring to is not a scientific one and is relatively recent development. It's way down at sense #11 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organic. IMHO "organic food" is better described as "organically grown food."

"Organic" food is just as much about marketing as the units HDD manufacturers use. "Organic" is presented as inherently more tasty, healthy and more sustainable than non "organic" but reality is much more complex.

But the same thing is happening with milk and other food producers seeking to change the definition of "organic" so they can sell more food without actually being organic.

That's probably not the best example given that "organic" has several much older definitions which happen to include almost all food, while the newer marketing term has given us such gross violations of language as "organic table salt".

Espcially since a lot of other meanings for bank came first. The original use of bank, in terms of elevation, came into use around 1150-2000 AD, while the bank that handles money didn't exist until 1425-1475 AD. Also, the original word can trace it's origins back to the swedish word, backe, meaning hill.

Here 1. supplementary material at the end of a book, article, document, or other text, usually of an explanatory, statistical, or bibliographic nature.

Unless of course you were trying to be a dick and making reference to the fact that the human appendage, which we don't really know anything about, is somehow supporting your case that evolution is bullshit....in which case: Fuck off

I like [most of] your comment, but please don't use words you've only heard and never seen, like "hoi polloi" or "cachet". Thank you, and goodnight.

And, may I add, perfectly...

The word you're looking for here is "Cromulent"

Slow down there, sparky

You mean, the FLUID that caused the shuttle to turn on and become active, without which it would not operate?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fuel
Fuel:
1. Something consumed to produce energy.

It may have been a bio-chemical substance, containing genetic material, but it was pretty evident that it served as fuel for the shuttle.

        -dZ.

What I am curious about is why a Spaniard is allowed to do so in Mexico. That's more curious than dubious restrictions on import.

What I am curious about is why you bring this up when he didn't mention a Spaniard.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hispanic